Exaclty what I want so see from this lens. I'll use it as a "normal" 100mm lens too, not only as macro

For non-macro use, the focus limiter helps (else focus might end up hunting from 1:1 to infinity and back, and that's a long traverse). Also, I've found that my 100mm f/2.8L Macro IS seems to hunt for focus a bit more in low light than other f/2.8 lenses.

I spent half an hour this morning hunting bees in flowers in my backyard, 70-300L on a bunch of extension tubes. MF only, stupidly low DOF, handheld, only thing useful was the IS, those bees move fast and you have to be lightning quick to find, follow, frame, focus before it moves to the next flower.

sigh.

damn i want the 100L, would make my life so much easier...

ps, Tian, i love that apple-globe. Extra points if you managed to bite it that way rather than use a knife. (did you put the mid-Atlantic ridge there on purpose? not in exactly the right spot, but extra points anyway)

The 100L's center resolution is very good, but there are some lenses that outresolve the 100L, and many lenses that outresolve the 100L at the edges. At f/5.6-f/8, even the cheap nifty-fifty (50mm f/1.8 II) outresolves the 100L across the whole frame.

But if you mean resolution in actual spatial terms, i.e. the ability to resolve spatial details of real world objects, then yes, the 100L is great for that. Then again, if you like the detail in shots at 1:1 magnification, try going up to 5:1 magnification with the MP-E 65mm f/2.8 1-5x Macro (example images here).

The 100L's center resolution is very good, but there are some lenses that outresolve the 100L, and many lenses that outresolve the 100L at the edges. At f/5.6-f/8, even the cheap nifty-fifty (50mm f/1.8 II) outresolves the 100L across the whole frame.

Not saying I disagree, but where are you finding data for this? If there is a site that has it for various lenses I'd like to get a link for reference.

The 100L's center resolution is very good, but there are some lenses that outresolve the 100L, and many lenses that outresolve the 100L at the edges. At f/5.6-f/8, even the cheap nifty-fifty (50mm f/1.8 II) outresolves the 100L across the whole frame.

But if you mean resolution in actual spatial terms, i.e. the ability to resolve spatial details of real world objects, then yes, the 100L is great for that. Then again, if you like the detail in shots at 1:1 magnification, try going up to 5:1 magnification with the MP-E 65mm f/2.8 1-5x Macro (example images here).

Yes, I mean resolution of details. I love close-ups taken with 100L. But I don't need macros greater than 1:1, so no need in MP-E lens. I mainly do studio shots and tried different lenses before choosing 100L. At F8+ it gives sharper results than 24-70, 24-105, 70-200F4 (have not tried F2.8 yet) and others. My practice shows that 50 F1.4 is more-less close to that, that's why it's the second lens I normally use there.

And one more thing: graphs are good, but personal impression/knowledge has much bigger value (to me)

Yes, I mean resolution of details. I love close-ups taken with 100L. But I don't need macros greater than 1:1, so no need in MP-E lens. I mainly do studio shots and tried different lenses before choosing 100L. At F8+ it gives sharper results than 24-70, 24-105, 70-200F4 (have not tried F2.8 yet) and others. My practice shows that 50 F1.4 is more-less close to that, that's why it's the second lens I normally use there.

And one more thing: graphs are good, but personal impression/knowledge has much bigger value (to me)

A macro lens is optimized for close photos, and will outperform most ordinary lenses at MFD.

However, at longer distances, it begins to lose its edge. The older non L 100mm macro was slightly sharper, but it did not have the wonderful IS, and I found it difficult to use in the field when compared to the "L".

That wonderful IS compensated for my admittedly sloppy practices, which makes it appear to be sharper, when, in fact, it is not.

For studio photography on a tripod, IS isn't needed, so you could gain sharpness and save money with the 100mm f/2.8 macro usm.

I was trying ordinary 100mm to and found 100L a bit sharper + I don't use tripod (I like moving ) + "L" letter is not for beauty reasons as all we know, so I can get 1:1 crops like this:

+ I have 50F1.4 in other cases I don't need 100L

The same issue I had. Up until the 100mm L, handheld closeup shots were doomed to a lesser quality, they might be good, but they did not show what the lens was capable of doing. The only proper way to get the best of the 100mm USM was with a tripod.

Comparing a handheld shot with the Non-IS and with the IS will show what the IS can do to overcome movement.